Texas daycare groomed kids for sex parties

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby Pierre d'Achoppement » Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:14 am

1. It was. 2. My comment was not directed to you only. 3. I'm offended by the subject matter too. Please don't offend me again by implying that I'm not. 4. Referring to the gender of your username is to be expected? It's a biblical term by the way:

“Look! I am placing in Zion
a stone to make people
stumble and fall.
But those who have faith
in that one
will never
be disappointed.”

Anyway, this happened where I grew up:

Mass Hysteria in Oude Pekela
Benjamin Rossen*

ABSTRACT: This account describes allegations that dangerous child molesters were operating in a small village in the Netherlands and the subsequent multiple interrogations of nearly all the preschool children in the village. This started as a result of slight anal injuries resulting from sex play between two small boys. Over several months the stories grew to include fecal and urinary games, sexual abuse, vaginal and anal rape, sadomasochistic performances, manufacture of pornography, drug administration, bizarre rites, and the sacrificial torture and murder of infants. There were no physical injuries apart from the slight anal injuries in the first two children and no pornography or other evidence was found and the police eventually declared the episode to be an outburst of mass hysteria. However, the allegations are still being taken seriously by some people and this episode has created much controversy in the Netherlands.


Oude Pekela is a small village, population 8,000, in the North of the Netherlands near the German border. The collapse of the cardboard industry in the district about 20 years ago, leaving nothing to replace it, has led to the development of a subculture characterized by a feeling of helplessness and resentment; 60% of the population is living on welfare. There is a sense among Pekelders that life has cheated them. There is also a rather primitive populist political undercurrent. In these respects, Oude Pekela is not a typical Dutch town.

Just over a year ago two boys aged four and five, while engaged in exploratory sex play with each other in the bushes, sustained slight anal injuries. Another ten-year-old boy may have been present.

Apparently one of the boys tried to push a twig into the anus of another causing as slight wound — although at this stage we will probably never know exactly what happened. The mother of the injured child discovered a spot of blood in his underwear and took him to the family physician, Dr. Jonker.

Dr. Jonker suspected that the child had been raped by strangers. In cooperation with the city council, police and a psychiatrist, he arranged a meeting for parents at the local town center (actually, a pub). About 300 parents attended this meeting and a second meeting held a week later. The parents were told that dangerous child molesters were operating in the village and that their own children may already have been abused. During the course of the meeting, the psychiatrist explained the signs of sexual abuse (accommodation syndrome) and urged parents to question their children.

Over the next few months streams of reports came in. At first children told of being given candy and taken for rides. This developed into fecal and urinary games, sexual abuse, anal and vaginal rape, sadomasochistic performances, manufacture of pornography, burning with cigarettes, drug administration, bizarre rites, and the sacrificial torture and murder of infants.

School teachers got in on the act and ran interrogation sessions during the day. Social workers and police used up the children's free time for further interrogations. Parents continued these into the night. The number of children reported to Dr. Jonker ran into the hundreds — including nearly the entire population of preschoolers in Oude Pekela. Operating under the supposition that children suffer permanent damage if they are allowed to live with a secret of sexual abuse, the interrogators charged ahead with inquisitorial intensity. One of the kindergarten teachers was quoted as saying, "We put them at ease, came up with examples of what we did as we go away with someone and sometimes put words into their mouths."

The unfolding of this drama in the media has been traumatic for the entire nation. The average person believes most of the stories at face value. This is remarkable, for the stories are hardly believable. None of the children had been missed for longer than 40 minutes, and showed no signs of having been abused until the parents questioned them. In order to appreciate how remarkable this is, you would have to know how, in a little town of the Netherlands, everybody knows what everybody else is doing at all times. This suffocating atmosphere is referred to as "social control." The pornographers are believed to have moved about town in disguise, as clowns for example, enticing children away at precisely the moments when they would not be missed and returning them just in time to evade discovery. This has been taken as evidence that the pornography gang is comprised of master criminals, with wide experience and international connections — a classical conspiracy theory that is unfalsifiable. People in many places are frightened that the master gang might come to their town, or perhaps have already done so.

In the meantime the children of Oude Pekela have been traumatized by more than a year of intensive interrogation, therapy and psychiatric counseling. They are, now, indeed, wetting their beds, showing unreasonable fear of strangers, becoming aggressive at school, and engaging in unnaturally large amounts of sex play. Children have been reported urinating on the walls and tearing wallpaper away. In other families, domestic violence, gambling addiction, alcoholism and marital breakdown are blamed on the pornographers.

The police in the Netherlands are generally well trained and tend to be sober and moderate in their approach in most matters. Since no pornography could be found, a hospital investigation revealed no physical injuries apart from the slight wounds on the first two children, and the stories of the children were seriously confused and at variance with one another, the police declared the episode to be an outburst of mass hysteria.

There was an immediate and furious outcry. The parents of Oude Pekela accused the government of covering up for criminals. Religious crusaders and television preachers attacked the government for its liberal policies. In order to appreciate the impact of these allegations, it is necessary to understand something of the political background.

As early as 1980, the U.S. government began to accuse the Netherlands of being the world's largest source of child pornography. Pressure came from the White House to tighten Dutch laws and prosecutors' policies. The Ministry of Justice responded by setting up the De Wit Commission to enquire into child pornography in the Netherlands. Their very thorough study found that the Netherlands is not now, and has never been, a significant producer of child pornography. Indeed, more child pornography is produced in the U.S.A. and comes to the Netherlands the other way around. The myths die hard, however, and periodically there are still outbursts of allegations to be heard from the American side of the Atlantic. The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Child Pornography and Pedophilia even treated seriously the claim of the religious right-wing campaigners, J. Densen-Gerber and Kenneth Herman of D.C.I., that children were sold into sexual slavery at auctions held in Amsterdam. These kinds of astonishing allegations have been read with a sense of disbelief and wounded pride in the Netherlands. People now talk about "The American Allegations" and everyone knows what they mean. The discovery that American secret agents in pursuit of child pornography were operating in Amsterdam resulted in an outburst of angry resentment against the U.S.

This kind of emotional undercurrent feeds p0litical opportunists. The Netherlands also has its religious right-wing campaigners, and some of them are in politics. They have used the Oude Pekela situation to make mileage. Allegations that the government has instructed the police to put the Oude Pekela investigation into the stove pot to protect their political reputation are heard in The Hague and in the media. Even the American ambassador here has effectively challenged the government over the Oude Pekela affair.

The police were caught up in a difficult situation. If they had agreed that a secret master criminal gang has done it all and got away, they would have looked foolish and ineffective. If they said nothing had happened, they would be accused of covering up. In the meantime, a hard core of angry parents apparently driven by Dr. Jonker, were getting media attention and demanding that the criminals be tracked down and punished.

The Justice Ministry in Groningen responded by appointing a psychiatrist, Dr. Mik, to interview the children. His job was to separate the truth from the fiction. The police and justice knew that nothing had happened and felt confident that an expert would arrive at the same conclusion and announce it to the nation with authority. They were to be disappointed. Dr. Mik spent months questioning the children — using all the very worst possible methods — and came out with the finding that "... it is all true and worse than we imagine." Dr. Mik's spectacular findings received national headlines every day for several weeks. He described his methods for getting the truth out of the children.

"I told the child a story: 'Mother was working in the garden.' 'No no' called out the child, 'My father was digging in the garden.' I again, 'Then a cat barked.' 'No!' laughed the child, 'A dog barked.' ... and so I went on, until eventually the auto came, a red auto I knew, ... and then came a red auto with white stripes.' 'No no' called the child then, 'There were no white stripes. It was a red auto.' and so I went on, telling the story ... Many older children said at home that they knew nothing, while from their behavior it seemed opposite. So I said to such a child: 'I can imagine that terrible things have happened to you, nasty things that you dare not talk about. But perhaps we can try?' Sometimes it succeeded, sometimes not." (cited from the front page story in De Telegraaf, 22 Jan. 1988 (largest newspaper in the Netherlands)

Unfortunately, Dr. Mik was accorded credence by many people, including politicians. Others declared him to be a fool. One university professor called him the Witch Doctor of the North. The Queen decorated him for his services to the nation. Battle lines were drawn. People declared themselves believers and nonbelievers. In the meantime, the issue remains unresolved. Dr. Mik is still interviewing the children and more than a year after the beginning of the affair, children are still elaborating and expanding their stories. Recently, Dr. Mik has managed to get teenagers to join the circus. This is not only a tragedy for the children who are being taught to believe that they have been sexually abused, but also for the nation. People are far less confident about dismissing "The American Allegations." Some people are afraid that "They just might be true after all."
User avatar
Pierre d'Achoppement
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 7:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby Pierre d'Achoppement » Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:45 am

"I told the child a story: 'Mother was working in the garden.' 'No no' called out the child, 'My father was digging in the garden.' I again, 'Then a cat barked.' 'No!' laughed the child, 'A dog barked.' ... and so I went on, until eventually the auto came, a red auto I knew, ... and then came a red auto with white stripes.' 'No no' called the child then, 'There were no white stripes. It was a red auto.' and so I went on, telling the story ... Many older children said at home that they knew nothing, while from their behavior it seemed opposite. So I said to such a child: 'I can imagine that terrible things have happened to you, nasty things that you dare not talk about. But perhaps we can try?' Sometimes it succeeded, sometimes not." (cited from the front page story in De Telegraaf, 22 Jan. 1988 (largest newspaper in the Netherlands)


I would like Professorpan's take on this as a mentalist.
User avatar
Pierre d'Achoppement
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 7:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby lightningBugout » Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:45 am

You've quoted a paper published on the website of the great "Institute for Psychological Therapies." Founded by Dr. Ralph Underwager, founder of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation.

Underwager and his wife gave an oft-quoted interview to a pedophile magazine called "Paidika" in Amsterdam in 1991 that most have interpreted as an activist defense of pedophilia.

Some quotes from the article?

"RALPH UNDERWAGER: Well, they are paedophiles I have come to know, to talk with as patients while providing treatment. But my contacts have not been limited to the therapeutic setting. I've also met others in a general context, here in the Netherlands, and in the U. S., and I've read some of the literature.
Let me give you another example. The paedophile literature keeps talking about relationships. Every time I hear the word "relationship" I wince. It's a peculiarly bloodless, essentially Latin word that may have a lot of intellectual or cognitive content, but has little emotion. I think it would be much more honest to use the good old Anglo-Saxon four letter word "love," more honest for paedophiles to say, "I want to love somebody." Not, "I want a relationship." I mean, what the hell's a relationship?
Paedophiles can make the assertion that the pursuit of intimacy and love is what they choose. With boldness they can say, "I believe this is in fact part of God's will.

PAIDIKA: You say that paedophiles should affirm the fact that they believe that paedophilia is a part of "God's will." Are you also saying that for the paedophile to make this claim about "God's will, is also to state what God's will is?

RALPH UNDERWAGER: (laughing) Of course, I'm not privy to God's will. I do believe it is God's will that we have freedom. I believe that God's will is that we have absolute freedom. No conditions, no contingencies. When the blessed apostle Paul says, "All things are lawful for me," he says it not once but four times. "All things are lawful for me." He also adds that not everything works."

another one:

"PAIDIKA: There is research and some scientific opinion that demonstrates that more positive examples and personal experiences exist. Theo Sandfort's research, cross-cultural models, the writings of the German sexologist Bomemann. Shouldn't we be putting positive views into the picture in order to come to an understanding?

HOLLIDA WAKEFIELD: We don't know about The Netherlands. Our impression is that it's somewhat easier here than at home. "

If we combine that with a fact that you chose a term that someone has pointed out is used by pedophile activists who want to emphasize the "love" aspects of pedophilic relationships rather than the pathology (exactly as described here on a very controversial website in which the founder himself does just that aboe), that appears to be worth some consideration of the possibility that it is meaningful, I think. Could it be coincidental? Of course, but one of the main spirits of RI, I've learned, is about the nature of coincidence itself.

What's more, an ad-hom attack would be an attack on your character that is a willful distraction from your argument (presumably one that was empirically based.) But the argument you made was simply a "guess" (as you put it, in your own words) that generated more cognitive dissonance by ignoring all evidence and debunking key pieces of it - usually those parts that were about the reliability of child testimony. Another coincidence, given that Underwager's legacy was just that - debunking and clouding the reliability of child testimony (er, confessions) in legal cases.

Yet you claimed to have been attacked on character only. And you never responded to me challenging you on not looking at the evidence.

Take note - noone attacked Nathan28 who has suggested reasoned skepticism based on evidence.
User avatar
lightningBugout
 
Posts: 2515
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:34 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Pierre d'Achoppement » Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:56 am

If we combine that with a fact that you chose a term that someone has pointed out is used by pedophile activists who want to emphasize the "love" aspects of pedophilic relationships rather than the pathology (exactly as described here on a very controversial website in which the founder himself does just that aboe), that appears to be worth some consideration of the possibility that it is meaningful, I think. Could it be coincidental? Of course, but one of the main spirits of RI, I've learned, is about the nature of coincidence itself.


Yes, by all means let that be the legacy of RI: convicting people based on coincidence.


What's more, an ad-hom attack would be an attack on your character that is a willful distraction from your argument (presumably one that was empirically based.) But the argument you made was simply a "guess" (as you put it, in your own words) that generated more cognitive dissonance by ignoring all evidence and debunking key pieces of it - usually those parts that were about the reliability of child testimony. Another coincidence, given that Underwager's legacy was just that - debunking and clouding the reliability of child testimony (er, confessions) in legal cases.


The term child confessions I did not come up with but took over from a previous poster in this topic. Moreover english is not my native language. Ad hominem attacks consist of attacking the person instead of the arguments. This is what you have done towards me from the beginning. It isn't helpful in establishing a reasonable dialogue.

The article i quoted is from a master thesis of Benjamin Rossen written for the university of Amsterdam. The website you quoted just reproduced it.
User avatar
Pierre d'Achoppement
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 7:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby lightningBugout » Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:10 am

RI does not seem to be in the legal business. The coincidences I have pointed out are not related to legal conviction. They are coincidences about the way in which you have argued that you "guess" these children were not abused but that a moral hysteria is, in fact, at work. The first coincidence is that you used a term that is a term apparently used by activist pedophiles to signal their intention of emphasizing pedophilia as healthy love. The second coincidence is that the paper you have cited was (re)published on the website of perhaps the most controversial debunker of child testimony in the world. In my opinion, that paper is not tremendously convincing. It relies on cultural generalizations that characterize the collective consciousness of a small town in ways that are intellectually non-rigorous and retrograde. IMO.

I have not attacked you instead of your arguments. I made one provocative comment after I decided that you were making an argument that held no water and that doing so in the face of evidence was offensive. Let me make very clear - your argument is, in my experience, a very common one that very often circles evidence. That type of argument is commonly based on an appeal to one's sense of injustice and sympathy for a purported intolerance for difference.

In this case you suggested that "swingers" were wrongly being accused of a crime due to provincial distaste for their lifestyle. There is no evidence that I am aware to support your argument. Thus there is no argument to attack. It was snarky to make the comment about the videotape - I retract it. But that comment was not made in lieu of a more substantive critique of your argument. It was made because there was no argument to attack.
User avatar
lightningBugout
 
Posts: 2515
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:34 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Pierre d'Achoppement » Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:21 am

I'm not going to quote your various remarks but suffice it to say that even if there's no argument (in your opinion) attacking the person not making an argument (in your opinion) is still an ad hominem, namely directed towards the person. It's also an unneccessary insult. Why not just state that you don't see any valid argument? Instead you are trying to make suspicious in the worst dirtslinging way anyone who happens to disagree with you regarding this legal case and the value of the evidence. The local newspaper ran editorials about how to get rid of their neighbors the swingers club from 2005 on and continues to play a major role in this case. Now it's being converted to a church and presumably the community is morally whole again. Thank God, halleluja.
User avatar
Pierre d'Achoppement
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 7:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby lightningBugout » Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:30 am

Pierre, no. Respond to the evidence. Or respond to what I've actually written about Underwager, etc. You think its Christian fundies at work - all the more power to you but make the case. I admitted I made a snark comment and I retracted it. If you want to make your case, then go for it.

Let's get back to the kid's behavior, to the 5 minute deliberations, to the burnt video fragments, to the crib, etc.
User avatar
lightningBugout
 
Posts: 2515
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:34 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby blanc » Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:31 am

entirely tangential, dictionary hopping in a 1918 vol. the other day I came across 'pedocracy'.
blanc
 
Posts: 1946
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 4:00 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Pierre d'Achoppement » Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:39 am

I responded to the evidence wherupon you told me you would like me to tell me to fuck off if only it didn't get you banned rember? It was right before you made those snarky comments about me probably being a pedopropagandist who enjoyed childpornography, comments I'm happy to see you now have retracted. I responded to your dr. Underwager already, he has nothing to whatsoever to do with the article I posted which to me does seem convincing.
User avatar
Pierre d'Achoppement
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 7:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby Pierre d'Achoppement » Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:41 am

pedopropagandist incidentally 0 hits on the google :?
User avatar
Pierre d'Achoppement
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 7:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby Lurquacious » Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:42 am

The article Pierre posted is listed here as appearing in the inaugural issue of Ralph Underwager’s Issues In Child Abuse Accusations -- volume 1, number 1, Winter 1989.

lightningBugout wrote:In my opinion, that paper is not tremendously convincing.


My thoughts, too. It’s remarkably light on facts – it doesn’t even give a date for the events.

blanc wrote:dictionary hopping in a 1918 vol. the other day I came across 'pedocracy'.


Interesting. What was the definition?
Lurquacious
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 4:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby lightningBugout » Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:51 am

Pierre d'Achoppement wrote:I responded to the evidence wherupon you told me you would like me to tell me to fuck off if only it didn't get you banned rember? I


Pierre, that would mean your "response to the evidence" was this:

"Could this not be town hysteria about a swingers club: people get worried about morals, use children as leverage to demonize people with a different attitude to sex. My guess: no actual children were involved. Is there any actual proof (movies, pictures, bruises)?"

Let me walk you through this: the words you have written propose, at very best, a sort of Spielberg level explaining away of facts. There is absolutely not a single word in that post (the one you have claimed is a response to evidence) that refers to evidence at all, except for the prioritizing of types of physical "proof" that you apparently feel are necessary.

Let's make a prediction - your next post will refer yet again to my "ad-hom" attacks and how offensively I've treated you. But Pierre, let us ask again - why are you constantly circling the evidence that Lurq took the time to outline? ps. Referring to any purported attack I have made on you has nothing to do with this question. Yes, I said that I was tempted to tell you to fuck off, but why are you discounting all of the evidence?
User avatar
lightningBugout
 
Posts: 2515
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:34 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Pierre d'Achoppement » Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:15 am

Well yes I do feel that certain types of physical "proof" would be good to have, although they're certainly not possible/necessary in any case. Still if movies were being made of children performing lewd acts in sexclub in front of 100 people in clowns costumes I would not enjoy this video, let me say that again to be absolutely clear on this. But it would constitute definite proof. However as with most of the "weird" topics discussed here and other places, physical proof remains elusive despite growing technological capabilities in recovering, reconstructing and recording evidence. While it's fine to speculate on why this is on an internetboard, locking people up in prison you have to be really sure you're doing the right thing and I'm just not convinced, seeing the astounding claims on the one side and only testimony as evidence. As I stated before, we all know how sick people can be in projecting their own fears onto reality. While I'm not certain that this is always the explanation, I tend to not be convinced on hearsay alone if the events accounted seem to go against my own sense of normal reality (eg a gang of clowns). Add to that that the children involved only came forward after staying with their third fosterdad, who is a convicted sexual offender himself. It's a strange story, no denying that and a confusing one too, to get a grip on the exact sequence of events, the actual evidence presented, who was convicted of what and the precise familyrelations.
User avatar
Pierre d'Achoppement
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 7:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby Lurquacious » Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:22 am

Pierre d'Achoppement wrote:the children involved only came forward after staying with their third fosterdad, who is a convicted sexual offender himself.


Care to supply a source for this?
Lurquacious
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 4:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby lightningBugout » Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:24 am

Lurquacious wrote:
Pierre d'Achoppement wrote:the children involved only came forward after staying with their third fosterdad, who is a convicted sexual offender himself.


Care to supply a source for this?


or this: "in clowns costumes"
User avatar
lightningBugout
 
Posts: 2515
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:34 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 178 guests